What I find most interesting is that the makers of Virtualeye refuse to plot the trajectory of the ball beyond a certain point in its path on the basis that its not accurate to do so. Hawkeye does so. Who's right, and do we know for sure?

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

Originally Posted by Athlai

If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum'Joe says it then it must be true.

Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.

I don't know much about the VirtualEye version, but I suspect that it's to do with how many cameras they have or where they are, thus reducing the input information and making VE inaccurate past a certain point. If Hawkeye are confident that their system lacks this problem, then they must have more input information.

For a system that depends on inputs from cameras, surely the easiest component to fix is the number of cameras and their positioning? Virtualeye are surely not that broke.

Besides, the article that originally brought up this point mentioned that Hawkeye didn't even have a camera lined up behind the stumps. I can't see why cricinfo would lie or be mistaken about that.

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

Maybe you should be posing thing question elsewhere; not on Cricket Web? Every opinion here - for or against - is based on blind faith, not knowledge.

The ICC has said it would ask 'experts' to examine the accuracy of predictive technology; hopefully those experts would be people who actually know something about all this stuff. So why not just wait for the results of the study by independent experts?

With Hot Spot being made mandatory, cue members of the BCCI to complain vigorously when the inevitable 'obvious nick which didn't leave a heat signature' appeal pops up and the guy tons up followed by "We never liked URDS in the first place, felt pressured to accept it, IT COSTS $60k PER MINUTE!!!", etc..

I'm seriously interested in an answer by someone who actually knows about this stuff.

I don't really understand the whole point. Virtualeye was used throughout the Ashes as the tool for determining LBWs. I actually thought it was a lot better than Hawkeye, as it used more frames per second, so it seemed to provide more accuracy.

How about commentators disagreeing too on the ground and players feeling surprised too?
In any way this wasn't about Hawkeye.

Here we need to understand that only LBW calls are done by the Hawkeye not others.
And ultimately in any system it's the third umpires call.

So what is wrong with just using part of the system just with slow motion for the time being? It's not as if even if the UDRS is fully implemented you'll get robots to decide whether the evidence is conclusive to overturn or not?

People are 'suprised' by what HawkEye throws up because their perceptions have been wrong for years.

I'm amazed at the number of times commentators have said a ball was going to be sliding down leg side when it patently isn't.

​63*

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Come on Lancashire!

Originally Posted by Jono

Let it be known for the record that the font in the top of the picture noted that Kohli was wearing Jimmy Choo shoes and Happy Socks